Three Pillars and Arch-patriarchs of the Popish Synagogues, Treatise 4 · Section 30 – Section 31
SECTIO. 30. From the first face of the 93. leafe. to the first face of the 98. leafe.Rastel.
Three leaues and an halfe of this section are spent in a fonde quarrel of Maister Rastels picking,Fulk. that the Bishop should ascribe that opinion to Dunce and Durande, which is not theirs, but proper to Thomas of Aquine, against which they reason. But for al his impudent & shamelesse rayling & charging the Bishop with lying, it is Rastel himselfe which is the lyer and the slaunderer, for that whiche the Bishoppe speaketh generally of the schoolemen, he draweth maliciously vntounto Dunce and Durande. Thomas holdeth that transubstantiation is necessarie, or else the Churche should committe idolatrie in falling downe before bread. Dunce holdeth that if there were no transubstantiation graunted, yet the presence might well stande, and the adoration to, as Maister Rastel saith, but he taketh parte with Thomas. But if the reason of Thomas be good for the presence of the bread, because it is a creature, why not also for the accidents of bread which are creatures also▪
To the saying of Augustine In sermo ad Infantes, That whiche you see on the table is breade, Maister Rastel sayeth, it is a reason of Tinkers, Taylers, and Coblers, (O learned Clearke) and not of learned Schollers, to say it is bread, because it is called bread. But learned Maister Rastel, Saint Augustine doeth not say it is called breade, but he saith it is bread, and moreouer he maketh their senses Iudges thereof, Quid-etiam oculi vestri renunciant. Which also your eyes do tell you. And that your learned penne hath set downe out of Prosper, which is not to be found in Augustines workes, yet maketh it nothing against the remayning of bread, but only saith, that vnderunder the visible kindes of breade and wine, we honour the bodie and bloud of Christ.
To the saying of Gelasius, that the substance and nature of bread and wine doth not ceasse to be, he aunswereth that Gelasius doth expound him selfe straight after, where he saith: But they remaine in the propertie of their nature, as though nothing remained, but whitensse, thicknesse, &c. O impudent falsifier. Is substance and properties of nature all one? Againe I aske what are they that remaine in their propertie of nature, but the breade and wine? Finally the very argument whiche he vseth against Eutiches most plainely confuteth Rastell, for a moste shamefull and shamelesse peruerter of this Doctours meaning, for he concludeth, that as the substance of bread & wine remaine in the sacrament, so the bodie in Christ, after the assumption of the Diuine nature.
The like beastly racking he vseth of the wordes of Theodoret, which vseth the same argument against the Eutichians.
But in the end he saith, it must not be considered what one or two hauehave saide, but what the whole consent of the Church is, and if it were graunted that Gelasius and Theodoret denied transubstantiation, yet they graunting the carnall presence, it were a small matter, and nothing at all against the Catholikes, which hold of the generall councell of Laterane. What say you learned M. Rastel: is it not to be regarded, nor maketh it any thing against you, what Gelasius the Bishop of Rome hath written, whiche you holde can not erre? But where he sayeth, that they bothe graunt the carnall presence, I must sende the Reader to mine aunswere vntounto the 60. Chapter of the 3. booke of Hesk. Parlea. for Gelasius, and to the 52. and 56. chapters of the same booke, for Theodoret. How vnlearnedly he affirmeth Cyprians errour of rebaptization to be no heresie, because the church had not determined the contrarye, I passe ouer, when on the one side the bishoppe of Rome was against it, on the other side a whole councell in Affrica was for it.
SECTIO. 31. in the 98. leafe.Rastell
The bishop shewed out of the schoole men,Fulk that if a man worship the accidents of breade, Idolatrie may bee done to the sacrament. M. Rastell saith, not to the sacrament, but to the accidents. But do not you papists call the accidents, the sacrament? else what difference make you betweene sacramentum & rem sacramenti, in S. Augustine, the sacrament and the thing of the sacrament? Againe he saith, the fault were not in the institution of Christ, but in the silence of the priest and simplicitie of the people, that were no better taught. As though Christ did euer institute the sacrament to be worshipped after any maner of Latri… or Doulia, of which he reasoneth brutishly with putting such cases, if a man shoulde hauehave worshipped the only face of Christ as God, which no man would euer hauehave done, or his garment, which had bene idolatry whosoeuer had done it.